Posted on 01/23/2015 9:25:26 PM PST by artichokegrower
The state Supreme Court has voted to prohibit judges in California from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the 2.7 million-member youth organization bars gays and lesbians from becoming troop leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Mark of the Beast
It’s probably a good thing to keep old men who run around in black bedrobes and lace, away from the little boys. Especially as there may not be anything under those pretty robes. http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=faculty_publications
1st amendment?
Free association?
Free Speech?
Religious Concience?
Blah, blah blah. ..
What right do they have to prohibit judges from joining ANY organization, and supporting it, in their spare time?
If I were a California judge I would tell the state “Supreme” Court to go take a whiz up a crooked rope.
I suppose I’d have to read the article to find if if what they’re saying is all judges are queers and dykes?
Inclusiveness.
Diversity.
Tolerance.
Coexistence.
.
Don’t be silly that would be islamophobic or something!
I seem to remember a right to peaceably assemble. And to free speech. That may not be infringed by government. There is no exception for judges, who like to go camping, and who did not show fealty to those who take it right up the wazzoo.
That is the strangest ruling I’ve ever heard.
From here its just a small jump to total Gov control of peoples lives.
As well as Christian.
Oops! Looks bad for the homosexual marriage decision. Yikes!
That’s the clearest violation of the right to freely associate with others I have ever seen. Clearly unconstitutional.
Apparently the Boy Scouts are not as pro-gay as some freepers here claimed they were.
That freedom of association thing only applies to nobody.
California judges should be barred by the Boy Scouts on moral grounds.
No the article states that gays are not allowed to be leaders. That is still true. This is a judge trying to push the issue so the fudge packers can take little boys camping.
“’The people of California have a right to an impartial and unbiased judiciary,” Richard Fybel, a state appeals court justice in Santa Ana and chairman of the high court’s ethics advisory committee, said Friday.”
Ah-huh. So, a judge who is involved with Scouts is automatically unable to render a fair decision on any case involving gay people? What a crock.
Every judge, whether in a group or not, is going to hold personal views that could potentially conflict with a particular case some day. That’s why they are supposed to set them aside and operate according to the rule of law.
I also note with wry humor that complaints of conflict of interest for Vaughn Walker, the judge who struck down Prop 8, and also happens to be homosexual, were found to be “warrantless” by the California district courts.
So, being gay and ruling on gay marriage=not a conflict on interest, but being involved in a respected youth organization that is about many, many things besides gay membership = you can’t be trusted to rule on any case that might be related to homosexuality in any way, shape, or form, because you’re obviously a homophobic bigot. Got it.
*pounds head against wall*
Is this only for home judges, or all of them?
home=homo. jeez....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.